3 ms·
I don’t know if an analogy would help, but I thought the point the article was trying to make was sort of like distinguishing between a dude selling shoes at Fo
by Fezzik 7y ago
I don’t know if an analogy would help, but I thought the point the article was trying to make was sort of like distinguishing between a dude selling shoes at Foot Locker and a podiatrist - most people just need someone with a basic knowledge of shoes to get appropriate-enough footwear, while a small percentage of people with foot issues may need a podiatrist to do so, so how stupid would it be if we made everyone who wanted shoes go to a podiatrist to get shoes? It would be very stupid, and an excessive and unnecessary barrier to entry in to the wearing-shoes group. The same goes for glasses. The fact that we make everyone see a doctor that is formally trained to diagnose actual diseases and deformities of the eye just to get a pair of glasses is absurd. Almost anyone could be trained in a single day to prescribe glasses - calculating the needed power of lenses is a solved and mostly mechanical process. Sure, it would be great if everyone saw an expert in every field before making any purchasing decisions, but given that it is substantially more costly, cumbersome, and clearly unnecessary, why should we force people to do it?
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoI was just going in for a routine eye exam to update my prescription. The guy said, "The good news is that we can skip the rest of the exam." The bad news is that I had cataracts. The same thing happens with people with glaucoma, or macular degeneration, or... Being able to see is a really big deal. Catching stuff that can make you blind rather abruptly is a big deal. On the other hand, as you say, being able to afford to get a prescription and glasses that fit them is also a big deal.
- jelliclesfarm 7y agoHealth and food should be accessible to all and shouldn’t be subject to profiteering. Labour should be compensated fairly but it should be subsidized from demand side by boosting purchasing power rather than supply side subsidies. This is of course more true for food/Ag than healthcare...but I feel it can be applicable to healthcare industry too.
- cannonedhamster 7y agoDemand side subsidies have never lowered prices in the US as far as I'm aware. The latest Trump tax breaks, the Kansas tax breaks, and pretty much every time you goose demand side they pocket the money as profit and keep charging the same. Why should they decrease their profits if the government gives them free money?
- jelliclesfarm 7y agoWhile formulating a solution, it would require some enforcement. Resigning to past fates will get us nowhere.
- jelliclesfarm 7y agoThe article had no point. It was flowery rambling. It’s absurd to see a doctor before procuring a corrective pair of lens? The ability to see right changes with age, life style, genetics and disease. It absolutely does require a diagnosis. Some random guessing is not sufficient to determine which number you would choose for eye glasses. Especially in a country that is dependent on cars and we still need proper vision for driving. There would have been some point to this rambler of an article if the author had bothered to explain why it’s a hardship. It’s the expense, of course. Which directly ties to the cartel like system of Essilor Luxxotica frames company. It’s really cheap to produce but it’s sold at super high mark ups. This is a problem. The last part of the article was pure dumbass’ery. Appalling!